Appeal No. 2003-1867
Application No. 09/151,321
paragraph. Union Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989, 1000, 54 USPQ2d
1227, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In any event, we see no basis for contending that the relevant feature lacks
description in the original disclosure. As the examiner notes, page 18 of the
specification states that job data is recorded on hard disk 206. Job registration server 6
ascertains printer status and information regarding jobs registered in printers connected
to the network. Job registration server 6 also handles processing to select an
appropriate printer “based on stored jobs and printer status.” In isolation, the statement
could be interpreted as relating that a printer is selected based on jobs stored on hard
disk 206. However, the paragraph bridging pages 18 and 19 of the specification states
that printers return “attributes for all stored jobs” (Fig. 7) to job registration server 6.
The paragraph bridging pages 19 and 20 describes job registration server 6 as
acquiring information from individual printers, and searching received printer data for a
particular print mode. In contrast, the specification describes (pages 22 through 23) an
alternative embodiment in which job registration server 6 maintains information such
that job attribute information (e.g., requiring stop mode) need not be retrieved from
printers over the network.
Thus, whether the Section 112 rejection is based on the requirements of
enablement or the requirements of written description, we do not sustain the rejection.
Nor do we sustain any of the various rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The
rejections rely on the finding that Hower teaches the feature we have discussed in
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007